Consider a coestmer, Wetister, who may spend his income on bamultes of two gooks: first good" (f) and "aecoed good" (s). Lat ( f , s ) denote basdles of f units of the fint good and a asite of the wornd pood; both goods are avalable is cuitimusus tinerements. So, the mot of all posible bundis would be X R + 2 (the neh-argative pquadrant of two dinetisional rot epoce). Welster has uunatal preferenres; you could say he has a onetrack mind. Condider two hemdies in X 1 , x = ( f 1 , 1 ) and y = ( f 2 , 2 ) . If f 1 > f 2 then z > v rexardlese of the equantities s 1 and s 2 be wants as muxh of the first goed an breab get But if f 1 = f 2 , he peveres whichever of the baballe provides him with more of the aqood good. If f 1 f 2 and x 1 x 2 . Wetster in iadiffestat hetwera the two basulless thes appais, he in coseparing two ideutical basilis aay not be as diwious is that the Z m owe X is alis strongly manatone and stricify coinec. An informal (tat cunplete) proof is fine. Bat bark to Wetater's strangencae. To iltatrate further his ecossuricity, aupjoie that be alwass faces the folloeiag tradget eonstraint: p f f + p n whrre ( p f , p 0 ) are the price of the first good and of the mexod good, respectively, atud v is hin income. Webnter it a prie-tader in the two goods. (b) Gives his peeferences, tell ne bow much Welweter would consuse of each good given ( p y , p n , y ) . The ielation you derive abowe is an expresion for Wehster's (Marehalliad) demast for each good - we will tackle Marshallian alemand in more detail lates (or, if you ure froctactinating. by the weird about Webister 's peeference relation. And there is. His Z p oner X satisfies tationalify, strong monotonicity, abd exy strict convexity ... bat not centennityl The remaining parts of this question are meant to walk you through the argumends demosatrating that Webeter's prefatsee relation is not continuoes. To do this, you will show that there in no continoses utility fubation that can repreaeat Welister'y joeferenor relation. Let z ( f , s ) X be some abbitrary bunile. Let V ( x ) drnote a utility function eonsistent with Welses's preference relation zo over X . For out purpons, let a ntility function U be considered n + x lim U ( x 41 ) = U ( x ) (c) Let a , b > 0 . Which in greates, U ( f + a , s ) of U ( f , n + b ) ? Does the aaseer depend on the relative values of a and 6 ? Consider two sequenere. The first is { x f n = 1 , where x = f . x + n 1 } . The second is { x 2 } n = 1 where I ~ n = ( f + n 1 , x ) . Note that both sequences converge to the same bandle as n , nainely As we will want to use "proof by contradtiction," kit ws isitidly assume that U(') ts a contimous function; so assume lim n n U ( x n ) = U ( x ) and limen U ( x n ) = U ( x ) (d) Explaio who n + lim U ( 2 n ) > U ( x ) for acy positive integed . Hint, Start by arguing why V ( F + ) > V ( r ) for any two positise integrs i and f (e) Explais why U ( x 2 ) > n lim U ( e n ) for any positive integer j . Hint: Not.